Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-03-23 Council Minutes revised CITY OF CORCORAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 23, 2004 1 The Corcoran City Council held a Special meeting on March 23, 2004 at City Hall in Corcoran, Minnesota. Present were Councilors Bucher, Gageby, Guenthner, Lymangood and Thomas. Also present were Administrator Vergin, Clerk Tillmann, Planner Lindahl, Engineer Vander Top and Parks Consultant Buss. Mayor Guenthner called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. MOTION by Thomas, seconded by Bucher, and carried unanimously to approve the agenda with the following additions: • Discussion regarding Council attendance for March 25, 2004 Council Meeting • Possibility of recess to Country Pizza at conclusion of business Open Forum There were no requests from the public to speak during open forum. Conduct of Business Mayor Guenthner reminded the audience that tonight’s meeting was not a public hearing. The public hearing had been held at the March 4, 2004 Planning Commission meeting. He advised that consistent with Council meeting procedures, he would allow some public comment if appropriate or if a Councilor recognized a member of the audience to comment. The Mayor also advised that he would exercise discretion to limit public comment if audience members reiterated comments already made by other audience members, or if the information presented was not relevant to the topic at hand. Subdivision Ordinance Planner Lindahl advised that the subdivision ordinance presented for consideration was the culmination of efforts by the Council, Planning Commission and staff, and incorporated much of the public comment taken during the open houses and Public hearing held on March 4, 2004. The document is not a static document and Planner Lindahl expects that there will be changes in the future. The subdivision ordinance relates to the required procedures for subdividing property in the City of Corcoran. After brief discussion Council agreed by consensus that there were four sections that needed discussion or clarification as follows: Section 945 – Design Standards Mayor Guenthner questioned if the design standards were considered as guidelines to follow, or were compulsory. Planner Lindahl advised that the design standards are compulsory, not to be confused with the Design Guidelines, which are an appendix to the Zoning Ordinance. Councilor Bucher requested clarification regarding the minimum street widths, advising that 24 feet is too narrow for emergency service crews. Engineer Vander Top advised that street widths would be addressed in the Engineering Design Standards, and suggested a change to the section to read that street widths would be set in conformance with engineering design standards. Call to Order Roll Call Pledge of Allegiance Agenda Approval Open Forum Conduct of Business Subdivision Ordinance Section 945 – Design Standards CITY OF CORCORAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 23, 2004 2 Engineer Vander Top also advised that the Engineering Design Standards were not ready for approval by the Council, but would be approved as a separate document and referred to in the subdivision ordinance. Section 940 – Open Space Preservation Plats The Open Space Preservation Plats are proposed as a Conditional Use in the Rural Residential Zoning District, and outside the MUSA boundary and potential Future Urban Service Area. Council had no changes to this section. Section 925 – Premature Subdivisions Prohibited Councilor Gageby advised that this issue had previously been discussed by the Council but requested that it be revisited. He feels that there may be unintended consequences to prohibiting premature subdivisions, and that assumptions were made related to factors that may or may not apply to every situation. In regards to the proposed Senior Housing project proposed by Hope Community Church, he feels that the project fits the underlying land use plan and will not be allowed based on a technical interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance. The development of the senior housing project would be premature if it required infrastructure. For a developer that needs road and sewer services, this type of development would be premature. Hope Community Church is not asking for those types of services, and the project fits the underlying Land Use Plan. There is not disagreement among the Council that the project is good. Feels that the developer, not the City, should be able to decide when a good time to develop would be. Would like to amend the section to read that the City would allow certain developments that fit the Land Use Plan to develop as a PUD, provided that there is no need to add infrastructure, provided that the development is only premature of the City’s staging plan. He advised the Council that he had spoken with Attorney Carson, who advised him that this would be feasible. Feels that Hope Community Church is inadvertently being prevented from providing an asset to the community with the senior housing project, based on a technical interpretation of the ordinance. Suggested that certain other criteria would have to be met if premature development is allowed, such as the developer signing a binding agreement with the City attesting that no services (new or improved roads, sewer) are needed for the project, agreement to connect to services when they become available, no underdevelopment of the site and that the project is consistent with the long term vision of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Planner Lindahl advised that according to the ordinance, development must be consistent with the staging plan. In order to allow premature development, the staging plan would have to be amended. Councilor Lymangood added that there has been a significant amount of debate regarding the entire Hope Community Church project over the past several years. Feels that changing the ordinance at this time would be more than a technical correction and feels that not allowing premature development is fundamental to the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan. According to page 52 of the Comp Plan, phasing in the NE area of the city is reliant on Section 940 – Open Space Preservation Plats Section 925 – Premature Subdivisions Prohibited CITY OF CORCORAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 23, 2004 3 infrastructure services and transportation improvements before development is appropriate. If the plan is changed, it should only be done with significant public input. If the Comp Plan were modified as Councilor Gageby is suggesting, any number of parcels in the NE area would be available for development immediately if Hope Community Church were allowed to development prematurely. Is against changing the Comp plan because the City of Maple Grove is having this same problem right now and it has placed significant demands on City Staff and resources. Councilor Bucher added that he agrees with Councilor Lymangood and feels that the City should not be diluting its focus and maybe consider in 6 – 12 months. Councilor Thomas agreed, stating that this issue has been looked at extensively, and is not in favor of making any changes to the ordinance or Comp Plan at this meeting. Mayor Guenthner added that there are thoughtful observations on both sides of the issue, but not sufficient consensus to change anything tonight. Agreed that the issue could be reviewed at some point in the future. The following public comments were heard: Brian Lother, Pastor, Hope Community Church, 19951 Oswald Farm Road – Thanked the Council for allowing him the opportunity to address this issue with the Council again. Does not want the Council to adopt something that would be done just to allow Hope Community to proceed with their project. Reiterated that their project would not require anything from the city for roads or sewer services. The project is an extension of their current ministry and they will revisit the project in the future if they are unable to proceed at this time. The process has evolved over a five-year period and information has changed in that time period, i.e. the Met Council has changed their staging plan since Corcoran began this process. Reminded the Council not to lose the long-term focus for the community. Senior housing is a here and now need in this community, and the concept has been positively received by their congregation membership, the Council and Planning Commission and other members of the community. David Andersen, 20320 Hillside Drive – The PUD process can be used as a tool to control development, and could alleviate concerns at the Hope Community site regarding the timing and quality of the project. Tony Kuekle, United Properties – Presented a petition signed by 80% of the property owners in the commercial/SW district stating that they would be willing to pay for services in the area if the Council would consider accelerating the staging. Not sure if future development would support the cost of services if done according to the staging plan. Section 955 – Park Dedication Sherri Buss, Consultant, Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates, was present to provided an overview of Section 955 relating to Park Dedication. Buss advised that State legislation requires that Cities provide a rational basis for what is charged for Park Dedication fees. The Park Commission has Public Comments Brian Lother, Hope Community Church David Andersen, 20320 Hillside Drive Tony Kuekle, United Properties Section 955 – Park Dedication CITY OF CORCORAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 23, 2004 4 recommended adoption of the language included in the draft Subdivision Ordinance. The new ordinance has requirements for both land dedication and cash-in-lieu of land. The ordinance establishes dedication as a percentage of land value based on density for residential and commercial property. It does not provide a fixed fee dedication amount as has been used in the past. The Park Commission is recommending that density be calculated based on net land area using a definition of gross land area minus wetlands and land below the ordinary high water level. This net land area calculation must be the same for calculating density and park dedication. The ordinance also references a Park and Trail map, which has not been completed by the Parks Commission. The map will be completed and adopted by the Council prior to lifting the development moratorium. Buss provided an overview of the process followed by the Park Commission in drafting the park plan, which included a survey of current residents, similar communities and future usage projections. Based on estimates of costs to acquire land, the Park Commission established an estimated Park Dedication fee of approximately $10,640 per acre or $3,550 per unit (3 units/acre) based on a land value of $100,000 per acre. Councilor Thomas advised that he feels using a fee based on land value is inequitable. People that buy land with a higher valuation would end up being charged more in park dedication fees and that is not fair. Feels the City should use a flat per unit fee. People living in multi-family housing would be more likely to use park facilities than single family homeowners, as they tend to have more land for recreation. Mayor Guenthner questioned when cash -in- lieu of land could be used. Buss advised that according to the ordinance, it was at the Council’s discretion to choose cash-in-lieu of land. Councilor Gageby added that the Park Commission did extensive research to come to this determination, spending time surveying staff employed by Cities with significant park facilities. There will come a time when the essential parkland will be acquired for City parks and trails. Right now we are in the beginning stages of park development and should be looking at acquiring land if it fits with the Park plan. In the future, Council may be more likely to take cash. Buss added that this becomes a negotiation tool for the Council. Planner Lindahl concurred with Councilor Gageby’s statement that the Council decides whether to take land or fees according to the City’s Park plan. Buss added that the ordinance does not obligate the Council to take land. Councilor Thomas reiterated his objection to taking land irrespective of the market value of the land, or taking a fee based on the market value of the property. Councilor Bucher suggested that any fee that is set should be adjusted annually based on inflation. Mayor Guenthner added that he would support a single park dedication fee, to be reviewed on an annual basis with the City’s fee schedule. Councilor Lymangood stated that he is in favor of collecting park dedication based on a per unit fee and reviewing said fee on an annual basis. Questioned how the park plan would be implemented if a park area were identified in a development. Planner Lindahl advised that the City’s CITY OF CORCORAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 23, 2004 5 first authority, according to State Statute, is land acquisition. If a park area is identified in the City’s Park Plan as being in a development, then the City may take the land, then consider fees in lieu of the land. The following public comment was heard: Bill Halverstadt, 6420 Old Settlers Road – Feels that the model value of $100,000 per acre is inaccurate. Knows of parcels in the City valued at only $40,000 per acre, and one recent sale of $10,000 per acre. The City should use a per unit fee for park dedication. Original intent of the comp plan was to keep 70% of Corcoran as rural area. An unintended negative consequence is development. Mayor Guenther questioned if Developers would be given credit for the development of private parks. Buss advised that the Park Commission does not recommend that credit be given for private parks. The Mayor suggested that developers be given credit for private parks if they revert back to City ownership after a pre-determined amount of time. Buss added that if the City chose to do that, the location of the park and how it ties into the City’s park plan would be extremely important. Councilor Thomas stated that the park would have to tie into the trail system somehow. The following public comments were heard: David Andersen, Planning Commission Liaison to the Park Commission, 20320 Hillside Drive – The Parks and Trails Commission recommended unanimously that no credit should be given for the development of private parks. There is no public benefit. Councilor Lymangood added that of the 11 developments toured by Corcoran City officials, all developments allowed private park facilities, but none gave credit for them. Terry Forbord, Laurent Development, 100 S. Fuller Street, Shakopee -- Feels that the process Corcoran has followed to get to this point has been exceptional, very open and interactive with both the public and developers. However, disagrees with the park dedication section of the ordinance and requested that Council table consideration of the adoption of the ordinance until April 8. Mr. Forbord presented a letter on behalf of Laurent Development outlining their objections to the park dedication ordinance and advised Council that Laurent was submitting a legal brief within the next 5 days to the City regarding the ordinance. Information presented at this meeting was not presented at the public hearing, which is unfair. Councilor Lymangood advised that the information presented tonight was available prior to the public hearing and was in the meeting packet, even though it was not discussed at the public hearing. The entire process has been very deliberate and the City has attempted to create a compromise in regards to park dedication. Councilor Thomas requested clarification regarding land acquisition versus collecting a per unit fee. Planner Lindahl advised that when a development is reviewed, the City should consider the dedication of land first, if a park is Public Comments Bill Halverstadt, 6420 Old Settlers Road Public Comments David Andersen, 20320 Hillside Drive Terry Forbord, Laurent Development CITY OF CORCORAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 23, 2004 6 identified on the park plan in the development area. If not, then should consider cash-in-lieu of land. According to state statute, the City has the right to acquire land. Councilor Gageby added that parks are created through the acquisition of land, whether purchased or dedicated. The City has the option of also taking cash, or negotiating other options with the developer. Councilor Thomas reiterated his disapproval of the requirement of the dedication of a fixed percentage of the land, irrespective of the market value of the land, or taking a fee based on the market value of the property. Feels that if the City wants land for a park, they should buy it and every resident pay for it through taxes. Councilor Lymangood added that our park dedication ordinance is very similar to what many other cities have done. MOTION by Gageby, seconded by Lymangood, to adopt Ordinance No. 192, as presented. The motion was amended as follows: MOTION to amend by Gageby, seconded by Lymangood, and carried unanimously to amend the previous motion to include an amendment to Section 945 Design Standards that street width would be designed in conformance with Engineering Design Standards. MOTION as amended by Gageby, seconded by Lymangood, and carried unanimously to adopt Ordinance No. 192, including an amendment to Section 945 Design Standards regarding street widths. Roll call: Bucher, aye; Gageby, aye; Guenthner, aye; Lymangood, aye; Thomas, naye. Motion carried. Councilor Lymangood requested that the Council consider a joint meeting with the Parks and Trails Commission in the near future. Mayor Guenthner called a recess at 9:55 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 10:02 p.m. MOTION by Gageby, seconded by Bucher, and carried unanimously to adopt Resolution #2004 – 16, providing for summary publication of Ordinance No. 192 in the City’s legal newspaper. Zoning Ordinance Planner Lindahl reported on the proposed Zoning Ordinance being considered for adoption. A public hearing was held on March 4, 2004 during the Planning Commission meeting and extensive public comment was taken regarding the proposed ordinance and zoning map. Map Option A is labeled “Pro-active zoning” and Map Option B is labeled “Phased zoning”. Planner Lindahl requested that Council identify which map they would prefer to use in conjunction with the Zoning Ordinance. Also cited two zoning map issues for the Council’s attention, which could not be acted on at this meeting. Several property owners have requested a change in zoning for their properties, which would require an amendment to the Comp Plan. Mayor Guenthner identified Adopt Ordinance No. 192 Amendment to Motion Adopt Ordinance No. 192 as amended Joint Meeting with Parks Commission Recess Adopt Resolution No. 2004 – 16 Zoning Ordinance CITY OF CORCORAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 23, 2004 7 Zoning map preference, design guidelines, density calculations, and the application of boundary lines and precision of the map as items needing discussion and/or clarification by the Council. The following discussion ensued: Zoning Map Preference Councilor Thomas advised that he prefers Zoning Map Option B – Phased Zoning. Feels that it is more flexible in allowing development, as with the Pro-active Zoning Map Option A, people would have to wait for sewer services to become available before development would be allowed. Councilor Gageby clarified that all current uses would remain in tact regardless of which zoning map was adopted. Councilor Lymangood advised that he also preferred Zoning Map Option B – Phased Zoning, but was in favor of allowing 1 lot per 20 acres instead of the 1 in 40 acres, as proposed. Feels that the City will begin to experience excessive pressure for development as has been the experience in Plymouth and Maple Grove. The City will have greater control with the Phased Zoning, which reinforces the City’s staging plan. One lot per 20 acres is reasonable. The Phased Zoning Map is more focused, yet flexible and is a better model for development. Councilor Bucher concurred regarding the 1 in 20 acre lot size and questioned why the recommendation was 40 acres. Suggested that the words “Phased Land Use” be added to map Option B for additional clarification. Councilor Gageby reminded the Council that the Planning Commission recommended Zoning Map option A. Questioned why Council preferred Option B. Advised that he preferred Option A because the zoning in Map Option A is identified in the Comp Plan. Feels that there are more advantages to adopting Map Option A and would eliminate confusion for the public. Council agreed by unanimous consensus that the minimum lot size should be 1 lot per 20 acres. MOTION by Lymangood, seconded by Thomas, to adopt Zoning Map Option B – Phased Zoning, to include the words “Phased Land Use” on the map for clarification, and a 20 acre minimum lot size. Roll call: Bucher, aye; Gageby, naye; Guenthner, aye; Lymangood, aye; Thomas, aye. Motion carried. Design Guidelines Planner Lindahl advised that the Design Guidelines were advisory only at this point, but Council could make them compulsory if necessary. They are to be used to guide development within the MUSA boundary, and include general guidelines and specific guidelines for each of the three urban areas (Northeast District, Southwest District and Southeast District, including the downtown area). Council agreed by unanimous consensus that the Design Guidelines would remain as advisory at this time. Zoning Map Preference Adopt Zoning Map Option B Design Guidelines CITY OF CORCORAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 23, 2004 8 Density Calculations Planner Lindahl advised that the draft definition of density is consistent with what the Metropolitan Council uses to establish post-development density. There has been some question by developers about the draft definition. Staff established two definitions, and Council should choose one. Staff is recommending the use of the net density formula, which is more conservative than the other definition. Council agreed by unanimous consensus that the net density calculation should be used, as recommended by staff. Application of Boundary lines and map precision Planner Lindahl advised that according to MN statute, the City’s Zoni ng Map must be consistent with the Land Use identified in the Comp Plan. In order to change the land use, the City must hold a public hearing to amend the Comp Plan, and then amend the Zoning Map. The Planning Commission would make a recommendation to the Council, which the Council would have to approve and then make a recommendation to the Met Council to change the Land Use and Zoning. Property boundaries were not used when identifying land use areas on the map. Councilor Lymangood requested clarification as to who could initiate this process. Planner Lindahl advised that either the City Council or a resident or group of residents could initiate the process. The following public comments were heard: Don Tomann, UMC, 22510 Highway 55 – His property has split zoning and when the process began 7 years ago, he was told that it would be one zoning by the time the process was complete. He would like the zoning of his property amended that it is all in one zoning district. William E. Mason – He owns and operates one of the oldest farms in Corcoran. Feels that the Design Guidelines should preserve and protect the rural character of the City. Wants his property to remain as Agricultural Zoning. Feels that the Council and Planning Commission has done a good job throughout this entire process, but asks that they move slowly with future development. Councilor Lymangood made the following comments on behalf of his neighbors:The area west of City Hall on County Road 116 designates 20 acres zoned as Single Family, and 20 acres zoned as Multi-Family. Even though Council has chosen to adopt Zoning Map Option B (Phased Zoning) there will be no change to the Land Use. The residents of the 20 acres zoned single family want to be zoned as Multi-Family to remain consistent with the other 20 acres. The Land Use Map was adopted in 2002, and there have been no changes since that time. Councilor Lymangood added that any decision regarding this change should be made by the Council without his participation, since his personal property is included in this discussion. Also added for the record that he did not advocate any one zoning over the other when the Land Use Map was adopted. The property owners adjacent to him are requesting that the Land Use for the 20 acres designated as single family be amended to a Density Calculations Application of Boundary Lines and Map Precision Public Comments Don Tomann, 22510 Highway 55 William E. Mason CITY OF CORCORAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 23, 2004 9 Multi-Family use. Councilor Lymangood requested that he be excused from the remainder of the discussion and left the Council Chambers. The following comments were heard from: David Foy, 8115 County Road 116 – Identified himself as a neighbor to Councilor Lymangood. Advised that he was given false information regarding Councilor Lymangood’s involvement in the approval of the zoning for the property being discussed and apologized to Councilor Lymangood for his past behavior and comments. He did not understand the process that the Council was required to follow and was not aware that Councilor Lymangood did not vote on the adoption of the Land Use Map, since he was not on the Council at that time. Mayor Guenthner advised that Councilor Lymangood is meticulous on matters of public process and would not create the appearance of or any actual impropriety or conflict of interest, and has always acted in that capacity when serving on the Council and the Planning Commission. Mr. Foy then stated that the process to have the land use amended is more detailed than they originally thought and they would prefer that the City take it on, as opposed to those six residents. The 20 acre parcel zoned Multi -Family could have 400 units on it, and the neighbors don’t want that. Cheryl Suprison, 8225 County Road 116 – They did not get asked for input when the land use was designated. There are five parcels that have houses and one vacant property in the area. Steven and Darlene Lessor, 8205 County Road 116 -- Would not choose to be surrounded by high-density housing, and they were not aware that there was a difference in the zoning. Questioned how residents could initiate a change. Councilor Lymangood returned to the meeting. Joe Cavanaugh questioned the sewer phasing of a specific parcel in the SW corner of the City with Highway 55 frontage. Councilor Lymangood advised that the phasing of services in that area was conditioned on working with the City of Medina. There is no Met Council pipe in the area, so we have less control over the dates that services will be provided. Mayor Guenthner added that if an agreement can be reached with the City of Medina, Corcoran could be more flexible with the dates that services will be provided. Guenthner advised that the Council could not take action on this issue tonight, but that it would be reviewed and revisited. Councilor Lymangood advised that residents are always welcome to submit comments and requests to City Hall in writing. Residents can also be added to email lists to receive meeting agenda packets. Planner Lindahl added that facilities such as Golf Courses, City Hall, Lions Park, Schools, and the City Park would be identified as public institutions on the Zoning Map. They were identified on Zoning Map A, and should have been identified on Zoning Map B as well. Councilor Lymangood is excused Public Comments David Foy, 8115 County Road 116 Cheryl Suprison, 8225 County Road 116 Steven Lessor, 8205 County Road 116 Councilor Lymangood returns Joe Cavanaugh CITY OF CORCORAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 23, 2004 10 MOTION by Lymangood, seconded by Thomas, and carried unanimously to 1. Adopt Ordinance No. 193, with Zoning Map Option B “Phased Zoning Map”, with the Public Institutions indicated 2. Adopt the net density formula for calculating density 3. Adopt the Design Guidelines as advisory at this time, and 4. Adopt a 20 acre minimum lot size in the MUSA boundary MOTION by Bucher, seconded by Lymangood, and carried unanimously to adopt Resolution #2004 – 17, providing for summary publication of Ordinance No. 193 in the City’s legal newspaper. Other Business Councilor Bucher requested that staff develop a PUD checklist. Discussion was held regarding the March 25, 2004 Council meeting. It was determined that there would be a quorum present. Discussion was held regarding the Spring Newsletter. Councilor Lymangood requested that information be included regarding the Charter vacancy. Council requested that a joint meeting be scheduled with the Parks and Trails Commission between now and September. Directed staff to coordinate scheduling of the meeting to discuss the Park Dedication Ordinance and related fees. Mayor Guenthner expressed his gratitude to the Council for their service during this process and to the public for taking such an active role in developing the Comp Plan and related Ordinances. The Council also thanked staff for the time and energy put into the entire process. MOTION by Lymangood, seconded by Thomas, and carried unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 11:20 p.m. _______________________________ Kary Tillmann, Clerk/Treasurer Adopt Ordinance No. 193 Adopt Resolution No. 2004 – 17 Other Business Develop PUD Checklist March 25, 2004 Meeting Spring Newsletter Joint Meeting with Parks and Trails Commission Expression of Gratitude Adjournment